Ted Kennedy On The Supreme Court Vacancy

If the President abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people, then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee and we intend to do so.

In other words, if the President dares to nominate somebody Ted Kennedy and his cronies don’t like it will be an abuse of the President’s power.

Right. Gotcha Ted. Thanks for the input.

If anyone was harboring any hope for reasoned debate over the new Supreme Court Justice I think its pretty safe to throw it out the window right now. The Democrats’ idea of an unqualified candidate is anybody they disagree with politically. Or, in other words, anyone the President is likely to nominate.

For someone who has not and will not (ever) qualify for nor be elected to the Presidency, Ted Kennedy sure seems to think he’s presidential. Kennedy reminds me of Castro. It’s an odd relationship, as if Ted Kennedy assumed the Junior Castro of America role just to rankle democracy.

Jay TeaJuly 1, 2005

Silver said it better than I could. The more Teddy-bashing, the better. “Piling on” is not a possibility with Kennedy.

J.

Rod StantonJuly 1, 2005

He should nominate Janice Rogers Brown. No matter who he puts up the MSM/DNC will smear ( as Teddy has already started without even bothering to know whom he is smearing.). So make the fight worthwhile. Go for broke!

RanceJuly 1, 2005

There are three branches of government. Two of them are elected by the people, the third isn’t. When a vacancy occurs in the third branch, it is up to the other two branches to agree on the person who fills the vacancy. Making the appointee subject to the consent of the Senate, prevents the administration from having control of two branches of the government. The Senate shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for the president.

pennyJuly 1, 2005

Acting as if he has a mandate from all of us, Fat Ass uses the all encompassing phrase “the American people” rather loosely in his statement.

Having never lived in his home state could someone from there explain to me what keeps him re-elected? Has he ever been seriously challenged?

JATOJuly 1, 2005

Why not (joking) nominate John Kerry or Ted Kennedy? Maybe we could do a reality show on their confirmation hearings. Come on…it would be funny!

Who cares if there is a reasonable debate? We know going in it won’t be.

Will there be a vote?

Toby928July 1, 2005

JATO, I thought about suggesting that Bush nominate Hillary! but I suddenly felt a chill at the thought that she might just get her 51 votes.

The horror, the horror

Tob

HossJuly 1, 2005

As the Constitution states it is up to the President to nominate a candidate to the Senate for “advice and consent.” It’s not a co-equal branch decision to see who the President should nominate. And, last time I checked the Congress had a Republican majority (in name at least).That should allow the President to get an up or down vote without obstructionist tactics from the Democrats. Seeing as all liberals want to emphasize the role of the Senate in the nomination process, perhaps they can recognize the limitations as well. Isn’t it funny that a Republican Congress backing a Republican President is a “rubber stamp” (see above), while a democrat Congress and President would be labeled by libs and the msm as “united.”

InquiringJuly 1, 2005

Rance:

Let’s look at the flip side. The government is made of three branches, two elected by the people, the third instated by the populace elected branches. When an appointment becomes necessary it is most certainly up to those two branches to fill that vacancy. It is not the place, or even a constitutionaly granted right, for a minority within the Senate to obstruct every nominee the Executive Branch nominates until they (the minority within the Senate) receives a nominee that will honor said parties interests. The Senate is to advise, and whether or not the Executive Branch follows that advice, then to consent (vote up or down) on those nominees plainly and fairly. This is to prevent a minority opposition party within the Senate from gaining control of all three branches of government. The Executive Branch shouldn’t be a shill for a small faction within the Senate.

Mark A.July 1, 2005

And you wonder why I sound caustic??? Christ, my blood boils whenever Kennedy opens that void in his head. I’m about to start screaming like Howard Dean soon. Get help. Please.

You can use the entire population of a midwestern city, over the course of several days.

Hey, I’m in!

kbielJuly 1, 2005

And likewise, the Republicans’ idea of a qualified candidate is anybody they agree with politically. Or, in other words, anyone the President is likely to nominate.

WRONG!

Most Republicans want an originalist, regardless of their stand on abortion, taxes, gay marriage, etc. The problem with the current court is not the political leanings of the individual justices but their political loyalty. They should be loyal to the constitution and the original intent of the founders, not to whether they think somebody should have some right regardless of the constitution or current law.

Zsa ZsaJuly 2, 2005

Who cares what Ted Kennedy wants?…He should just now be getting out of prison for leaving Mary Jo to drown to death!…I love how the Democratic leaders such as Ted Kennedy and Robert Klu Klux Klan Byrd are allowed to be Leaders of this Party! It goes to show they shouldn’t be involved in choosing a Chief Justice in the first place! …